Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this application, applicants are challenging the order for issue of process in private Criminal Complaint Case No. 649 of 2008. 3. In the said case, complainant pleaded that the averments contained in the complaint filed by present petitioners against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are libellous, as what had occurred is:- [a] Complaint constitutes publication of the text therein. [b] Text of the complaint itself was defamatory. 4. Learned Adv., for the petitioners had read out to the Court the text of the complaint. The text of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which, according to the complainant, constituted defamation, has been reproduced in the private Criminal Complaint Case No. 649 of 2008. 5. All that is seen by this Court is that what is averred is discovery of existence of debt and failure to pay the amount. 6. Learned Adv. Mr. Ruikar has once again took the Court through the contents of the private complaint case discreetly and threadbare. 7. It is seen that no words casting aspersions as regards integrity, character and/or reputation of the accused in said Section 138 case are used. It is, thus, a clear case where the private complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in order to vindicate the grudge as regards non-payment of dues which the complainant had against the petitioners. 8. It is obvious that filing of a case is a publication, however, unless contents of the pleadings are defamatory, cognizance of a complaint under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code could not have been taken, save and except by an error of appreciation of facts and misreading of the text which was said to be defamatory. 9. At this stage, Court gave an opportunity to learned Adv., Mr. Ruikar for the respondent no.1-complainant whether the complainant would like to withdraw the complaint. He says, he has no instructions to withdraw the complaint. 10. Reading of Judgment of the Revisional Court gives an impression that Revisional Court was unnecessarily dragged into the exercise of going through the evidence recorded at the stage of verification etc. For the purpose of testing as to whether contents of complaint were defamatory, nothing, except text of complaint was required to be seen. 11. 10. Reading of Judgment of the Revisional Court gives an impression that Revisional Court was unnecessarily dragged into the exercise of going through the evidence recorded at the stage of verification etc. For the purpose of testing as to whether contents of complaint were defamatory, nothing, except text of complaint was required to be seen. 11. It is evident from the Judgment that the Revisional Court was dragged in this strenuous exercise, mostly because the cause was argued vexatiously and pesteringly than mannerfully and persuasively. 12. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge practically fell prey to the pestered arguments akin to browbeating. The learned Sessions Judge probably thought that it was good to be on safer side to dismiss the Revision Application and be exertive in writing an unnecessarily long judgment to justify an erroneous view. He probably thought that it was safe to be wrong than to be correct and to be a victim of rage of a pestering lawyer. Right course would have been to quash the issue of process. 13. It is a clear case where the present petitioners are being unduly vexed and, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be awarded costs in token, for being dragged right from the Trial Court, Revisional Court and this Court. 14. Considering approach and attitude of the complainant, it is a fit case where exemplary costs require to be awarded. However, instead of losing further time, it is better to award token costs. 15. In the result, this petition succeeds. Hence following order:- [a] Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [1]. [b] Criminal Complaint Case No. 649 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. [c] Petitioners are entitled to and the respondent no.1 shall pay costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000-00 [rupees ten thousand only] as token, which be recovered by the applicants, equally divided in accordance with law.